Yep. Dead on. Those big, heavy transports (747, A380, C-5, AN-225…) all need major amounts of lift to do their job, and they all use a hi-aspect, moderate sweep wing to do it. The F-14 varied its wing sweep from 20° to 68° to make the transition from slow loitering to supersonic dash. That cool swing-wing action was more than just for show.

you’re missing the point, even if Cola pointed it out before:

conventional wings give you high lift (especially when strongly curved with slats, flaps etc..) with lesser AoA than a delta, and that’s why you have such wings on the subsonic aircraft. Less AoA, less drag and most of all, ability to take off and land without having to have looong struts for landing gear. Just look at the alpha of the concorde when it takes of. a 747 needing such alpha to take off would be dragging its tail on the ground way before it ever got off the ground… not to say that, if it ever reached such alpha, it would stall immediately.

Besides, you points F-18’s high AoA… you only forgot (ignored?) one thing: the F-18s wing is stalled at that point and lifts almost nothing, and its almost exclusively the vortices produced by the LERX that keep it in the air.

Seems like an awful lot of trouble to sell 36 aircraft.

ever looked into indian procurement procedures? 😀

so, basically, what you’re saying is: it’s tealthy because it carries everything internally… and when someone points the “LO nature of eurocanard designs, you come back running to show a pic with plenty of stores underneath it, pointing how “unstealthy” it is, and now, you say the F-35 will carry stuff externally but it doesn’t matter?

did you ever hear the word “consistency” mate? 😀

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0CPPlFk4Yo

Yessir… “Compromised agility” is the very first thing that comes to MY mind when watching an F-22 demo. :rolleyes: As for the compromised aerodynamics, I’ve already covered that with those painfully obvious side-by-side pics vs. the Tiffy. I mean COME ON! We are NOT talking about the F-117 here.

actually, the major point in F-22’s agility is not its aerodynamic qualities but the TV.

if it can pull those stunts, it’s only because it can shift the thrust by a few degrees and generate a moment to rotate its fuselage on the pitch axis.

Simple way to see what TV can do is to compare the demos by the Su-37 with all sorts of stunts and the one with the Su-33, which has similar aerodynamic qualities but not having TV. strangely, it’s way calmer with the Su-33 😉

LowObservable,

Did you even bother to read the rest of the article?

I thought not. 🙂

I did, so? one can argue “logically” that bananas grow on the moon… it still won’t make it a reality. When you work for a company that has billions involved, you don’t come out and say publically “my boss screwed this up and will cost you more and more as time goes by”.

If he managed to get a Ph.D it doesn’t prove his competence, but only that he knows how to present facts logically to support his POV. You can get a Ph.D with any sort of thesis and the difference between you getting it or not will depend on your argumentation, not the reality or truthfulness of the thesis you defend.

Finally, you get experts from the pentagon, DoD, independant, more or less everybody who looks a bit into the facts that says: this thing is way over budget and way late.. the only ones to say “it’s fine, almost not late and not that much over budget (for some “even under budget” in the end) strangely happen to be more often than not (actually almost exclusively, on LM-s payroll.. if you can’t see what that means, nobody on this board can help you…

:confused: It’s all over the place, see e.g.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/navy-converts-biofuel-into-noise-to-celebrate-earth-day/

They are already testing it.

Could a combination of sales of 200 super tucanos and promise to develop biofuel help the SH win this!? Will Dassault experience another Marocco?

The Americans often keep quiet however they always work in the background and should never be underestimated. My latest guesswork on the chances of winning:

Rafale 60%
SH 20%
NG 20%

what I means is that boeing has little to do with the conversion. that “biofuel” is handled just as aviation fuel for all parts except engines (basically, you get a sort of oil to burn, be it from petrol or plants).. and if these can handle it, it has little relation with the other parts of the aircraft.

http://noticias.r7.com/brasil/noticias/boeing-propoe-parceria-em-biocombustiveis-em-troca-da-venda-de-cacas-a-fab-20100422.html

The Americans seems to have not given up yet!

obviously not, but I have a little problem with that claim… what fuel one uses depends on the engine technology… now, when did boeing last build an engine?

If it was PW or GE who said that, it could sound logical, but from boeing, I have trouble seeing what they could do about it